Abortion and the selective compassion of our time

Anthony KellyABC Religion and Ethics
26 Mar 2012

On the abortion issue, the flickering moral vision and the selective compassion of our time can only benefit from a review of what we have come to, and where we go from here.
Credit: Chip Somodevilla (AFP)

The ethics and politics of abortion continue to be neuralgic issues. It is estimated that between eighty and one hundred thousand abortion procedures take place each year. While these figures are enough to make one stop and think, it is not always clear how to articulate what one thinks, much less how to have a humane discussion of the issues.

Point-scoring debates don't seem to do much good, least of all on television or in the media generally, where no change of mind is permitted, and it is often impossible to acknowledge any good in contrary views. As a result, we get what is commonly called the "demonising" of the opposition. Needless to say, no one has a corner on compassion.

Socrates declared long ago that the unexamined life is not worth living. In the case of abortion, when the lives of potential new citizens are at stake and their parents and families are so radically affected, some re-examination is desirable. If the cultural life of a country is to be worth living, it must be prepared to examine conscientiously the causes and conditions that deny the right to life to the unborn.

The liberalisation of abortion laws was, of course, an emblematic issue for the Women's Liberation Movement. It was successful: clinically safe abortion procedures were implemented and dangerous practices were outlawed. But whether those early protesters on behalf of women envisaged the scale of the present practice of abortion might be doubted.

At present, there is an even larger context. Demographic concerns over our rapidly ageing population raise new questions. Is the path to the future secure in many countries when in fact there are so few are being born and so many aborted?

Culturally speaking, the abortion question seems to have slipped under our guard. Society has grown aware of its ecological responsibilities. The recognition of endangered species calls forth prompt and effective protection. But here we are dealing with a danger rather closer to home. Up to a third of the next generation is being terminated. A 30% casualty rate would point to a particularly bloody military engagement. Ecologically speaking, it would be an unacceptable proportion, say, in regard to Black Cockatoos or Great White Sharks.

Still, a dramatic ethical development has occurred in many areas. The death penalty has been outlawed. Violence, rape, racial prejudice and the corruption of children cause moral revulsion and are met with the full force of the law. More positively, the principle of equal opportunity, extending especially to the handicapped and the underprivileged, is taken for granted, even at considerable economic cost. Further, any form of cruelty to animals provokes outrage. More positively, the generosity of the Australian public towards those who suffered recent natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts and floods in our region and beyond, has been inspiring.

We might expect that such instances of genuine moral sensitivity would create a climate of grave concern over the present scale of abortions. But our social conscience is strangely tongue-tied on this question. However the silence might be explained, public reflection on abortion is episodic and is usually "no-go zone" in political discourse.

The flickering character of our moral vision in regard to abortion looks for an explanation. Who is to blame? I would suggest that all of us are. Each of us is in some way responsible for the cultural mood that accepts abortion as a fairly normal fact of life. There is no need to "demonise" anyone, least of all the women most intimately faced with this issue.

Some of us, for religious or philosophical reasons, consider abortion a moral evil. But that was never going to be enough. Somehow we have failed in forming a society that would support women through this kind of crisis - so that they could welcome the child they feel, for whatever reason, unable to have.

A humble confession of sins is in order for all of us. The sex-crazed condition of modern society has affected everyone. More deeply, perhaps, a consumerist culture of increasingly narcissistic proportions is keeping all of us in its thrall.

In the meantime, present and future generations know, implicitly at least, that they were born into a dangerous world. Society never assured any one of them the right to exist. On the world-scene, perhaps a third of their number is aborted. The chilling possibility exists that these survivors will have learnt an early lesson. Why should the rapidly ageing members of the society which never assured them of life now deserve to be cared for - let alone, loved? With an inconvenient number of elderly people drawing on overtaxed resources, other laws of termination will come into play.

It need not be so. On the abortion issue, the flickering moral vision and the selective compassion of our time can only benefit from a review of what we have come to, and where we go from here.

Anthony Kelly CSsR is Professor of Theology at the Australian Catholic University. This article forms part of "That's Life!" - a week-long event at the Melbourne campus of Australian Catholic University aimed at raising awareness of major social issues and promote the dignity of all persons. During the week, there will be talks from experts in their field on a range of topics, including health care ethics, euthanasia, understanding Church teaching and whether the early Christians were pro-life.

Actions

Share

Comments (105)

Martin Snigg :

30 Mar 2012 10:42:53am

"The efficacy of a sacrificial regime – understood in terms of the anthropological analysis of René Girard [Académie française world-class anthropologist] – does not require that the sacrificial community hate or revile the sacrificial victim. All that is required is the conviction that the elimination of the victim is necessary to the preservation of the community as presently constituted, and that the present constitution of the community is worth the sacrificial costs required to preserve it.

Understood in this way, the existence of abortion on demand qualifies as the greatest single sacrificial system of all time. The killing of the unborn is – explicitly or implicitly – considered to be indispensable to the continuance of the regime of the sexual revolution, and the sheer number of those sacrificed to its continuance exceeds that of any regime in history. Moreover, the unborn undeniably constitute the most powerless and voiceless category of victims imaginable." [Bailie 2012]

ABC (Moderator):

28 Mar 2012 4:25:21pm

Just a small reminder that, especially on such an emotive topic which bears deep moral and theological implications, it is important that the tone of this debate remains civil even if vigorous. Several dozen comments have not been approved, not in order to censor any particular point of view, but because they crossed the line into needless aggression and/or crassness.

kate :

28 Mar 2012 4:33:34pm

Thank you for the reminder.

It is a matter for you where you draw that line, but I would have thought one poster in particular has long ago crossed it, even based on the comments you have posted. I hate to think how much worse the rest of his comments have been.

ABC (Moderator):

28 Mar 2012 4:40:06pm

I am genuinely trying to give fair hearing to all sides - and no one in particular has been more guilty than others. Readers don't see what gets deleted (and that's how it should be) but it would be remarkable if fora such as this could exemplify what careful, compassionate, attentive and even ferocious disagreement looks like. I believe that's what Fr Kelly is calling for in this very article.

Hudson Godfrey :

28 Mar 2012 6:05:09pm

Thanks for your work. I concur with the sentiments it expresses and applaud the enormity of difference between these discussions and the unmitigated bile that you'd cop trying to examine these issues elsewhere.

ChrisB :

28 Mar 2012 2:56:42pm

There were several comments about the stats (but do they really matter?) being too high. I tracked down a Medical Journal of Australia article (https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2005/182/9/estimating-australia-s-abortion-rates-1985-2003) which contained the phrase "Conclusion: There are no data currently available for deriving accurate numbers of induced abortions in Australia."However, they didn't tell you that the article went on to say:"The annual number of induced abortions in Australia is difficult to ascertain and has therefore not been regularly reported. Attempts have been made to estimate it at different times using Medicare and hospital morbidity data. It was estimated at 89 521 in 1993–94 (by an expert panel of the National Health and Medical Research Council) and at 95 200 in 1995–96 (by the Australian Bureau of Statistics). The Alan Guttmacher Institute’s estimate of 91 944 abortions in 1995–96 represents an abortion rate of 22.2 per 1000 women and points to an increase over the preceding 2 years."

Andrea :

28 Mar 2012 2:20:21pm

A few people have stated that a fertilized egg is not a human being and therefore does not have the same human rights as those of an already "living/born" human being. I'd like to ask, at which point of development is the developing baby entitled to human status? 3 weeks? 3months? 6 months? The day before birth? Many abortions are being performed where tiny arms and legs are torn from the baby. Is that just a bundle of cells too?

Andrea :

29 Mar 2012 7:51:09am

Therein lies our fundamental difference in belief I think. I do not see humans as a bundle of cells. I see a human as a body (which is the bundle of cells) and a God given soul. I believe that the soul is given at conception, therefore an abortion to me is throwing Gods gift in his face.In regards to saying that babies do not have human rights until the day of birth...I'm speechless. To think that a child who is fully finished, formed and living in the mothers womb has no rights and is basically considered a nothing. What a callous attitude.

Rhino :

31 Mar 2012 12:03:28am

Well Andrea, firstly I said the APPLIED (caps for emphasis) answer to your question was birth and this remains so. This remains a legal and socially accepted point at which human rights apply. You seem to forget that before birth the mother has absolute equal access to the same human rights that a new born baby has. This is something anti choicers seem to forget that the mother has all the rights, up until birth.

As for this point: "To think that a child who is fully finished, formed and living in the mothers womb has no rights and is basically considered a nothing. What a callous attitude."

I am sorry, what? A baby is born fully finished? Rubbish, the teenage years of any childs life is ample evidence that no child is fully finished.

Finally, the soul, what is a soul? What does it look like? What are its properties? What part of the body contains the soul? More importantly, why do I need a soul? Especially when this god thing is such an easily dismissed human creation, why should I accept the existence of a god given soul?

naughtee :

hi andrea, i respect your right to believe in your god, i feel that is a most important right we all enjoy and exists due to our secular state.

however, your belief in a god should not have any bearing on others' rights.

for instance, if you believe that accepting, say a blood transfusion to save your life throws "gods gift in his face" then you have the right to refuse and die, however if your child needs that blood transfusion that is another matter. if you decide to pray to your god to save your child instead of seeking medical treatment and your child dies you are legally culpable.

hence you can refuse to have an abortion, as can i, however you can't use your belief to restrict others' choices. if we allow religious instruction to do so we would all lose our rights and choices.

Astonished :

28 Mar 2012 11:14:02pm

"I'd like to ask, at which point of development is the developing baby entitled to human status? 3 weeks? 3months? 6 months?"

That's a point about which we can't yet make an accurate assessment, depending on your criteria. Our knowledge of human development would indicate however that the brain of a fetus is not at a point that would sustain sentience in the first trimester, and probably much of the second one too, the point at which many localities limit choice about abortion (medical emergency excepted).

Arms and legs on a fetus are present and identifiable as such before the end of the first trimester. Their presence does not indicate one way or the other the humanity of the body of cells to which they belong. Those fetuses that fail to develop brains can have extremely well shaped faces, limbs and so on too.

Noeyedear :

28 Mar 2012 2:11:05pm

What is so easily & usually overlooked is that by outlawing abortion, all women who marry or simply have a sexual encounter will be forced into the situation of accepting that they will have to go through with a pregnancy & birth that they may not want. It is a form of slavery. If you deny someone the right or option to get out of a situation they do not want to be in, then it is slavery. The woman is being enslaved and used by others around her for its productivity. What of the woman who has already a number of children and is in her 40s and doesn't want to "go through" it all again? What of the 13 year girl who is raped by a relative and is forced to go through with a pregnancy & birth? I'm with the feminist who said that "...if men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament!" This is so, so accurate. And on a slight angle to this debate, if the aborted are so important, why is there never any recognition of the loss of similarly aged unborn babies which are lost via miscarriage & even more tellingly, the stillborn? Why is there never any mention of this loss of those potential new lives? Why don't the Churches have prayer or ritual for a woman & her family to go through when that happens to them? Don't trot out the old line that it is because it is natural; it shouldn't matter. If the church was truly caring about all lost unborn babies then there should be no distinction made & yet you never hear them talk about all the pregnancies that end in miscarriage or stillbirth.

Martin Snigg :

28 Mar 2012 3:01:30pm

Exceptions make bad laws. People are killed going through green lights because another has gone through a red. This isn't reason to get rid of traffic lights.

Killing babies is wrong wherever it is done, the last response a moral people should make to a mother's desire to kill her daughter is to legalise and promte and tax payer subsidise it! there are a million other things I could think of that wouldn't abandon mother and child to violent life and death conflict.

As a society we have to do better than that. Politics is about people - us, not our owners' whims. When humans are treated as we are under abortion laws that teaching infects and corrupts the very meaning of the human person at therefore politics at its foundation, and our owners end up treating us like livestock.

There is simply no way to social and political peacevwhile we kill the most vulnerable members of the human family. Understand this - as the babies go so do we. We're inextricably linked to them. Societys that stood on a foundation of slavery were unstable and disintegrated, those based on racial theories and hygienic genocide collapsed - the legitimacy of our owner/rulers stands on the legal availability of baby killing.

And I reject in the strongest terms the misogynistic teaching that women suffer punishment in the fact of their femininity - that all life comes from them when they nurture and grow human beings inside their bodies. That should be fostered and celebrated - creating industries to destroy that amazing fact is incredibly evil.

kate :

Pragmatism :

28 Mar 2012 10:21:02pm

That's the point, but one many on your side have already conceded. Many pro-choice advocates argues that "even if it is a baby" a mother's body is her own and she shouldn't be forced to carry a "baby" to term if she chooses not to.

The truth is we don't know the point at which an embryo becomes a baby, and Peter Singer and others have argued that prior to 2 or 3 years of age its not really human, it just looks and sounds that way. A lot of key development takes place in the womb, but a lot takes place outside of the womb too.

If the argument is that an embryo isn't human then on what gounds to you prevent late-term abortions or even the "exposing" of young infants? Singer would argue that an infant is just a slightly more interactive embryo.

L'Chaim :

05 Sep 2012 10:09:59pm

My Dear Kate, How can I laugh at some of the comments I've read today, about such a serious matter? People, let's get real and let's be honest! We are all human beings in various stages of deveopment from the womb to the grave. Period. Why is it that a mother who is excited about her first pregnancy is shown the ultra-sound?"Oh, see the heart beating see his hands and feet moving! In the abortion clinic down the street, another mother (and she is a mother whether she likes it or not) has the screen turned away. is there no heartbeat in the 2nd BABY? What happened? What's the difference? The only difference is the attitude and circumstance of the the living adult human being towards the tiny human being living inside her. To argue over whether this being is human is, to put it mildly,ridiculous!I have more repect for PRo-abortions who say Yes ,it's a baby But we feel it's a woman's right to do away with him if she chooses But then again that doesn't sound very nice does it.

Martin Snigg :

Babies are being murdered, their corpses are burned as medical waste, a class of human beings are de-humanised and eliminated as a kind of perceived threat to a person's living space.

Twice comments of this kind have been censored. But language calling babies parasites and no different to tapeworms was considered admissible - why is one side of a disputed moral question overly burdened in this way?

Hudson Godfrey :

I don't think your comment should be inadmissible. It gives me the opportunity to contribute something important here.

You should have prefaced your statements with the words "I believe" because you can't prove it.

You should understand that even if the opposing view were likewise an assertion of faith the situation would call for tolerance of your different beliefs each towards the other.

The other side do have arguments based on scientific evidence with ethical interpretations they've made because their intent is not murderous but rather contraceptive. There's a difference oft pointed out and well enough known to both sides to frame this argument quite differently to how it is presented by either you or Mr Kelly.

So we disagree in our views about that is and is not ethical and indeed on the substance for what they're based upon. We also disagree about whether there is a basic imperative contained within either set of deliberations which we ought to be imposing upon other people.

What I think is being said here which ought not to be is that people who support a pro-choice position do so out of evil and murderous motives. It ought to be recognised that people can and do believe differently such that their intent in procuring terminations is nothing like that way it has been characterised here with reference to murder and involuntary euthanasia.

It ought also to be recognised that a woman has rights over her own body which on one view of your position your require to be countermanded by forcing her to carry to term.

I have scarcely ever heard any topic argued as unsubtly or with less empathetic regard for other peoples views in the spirit of the kind of tolerance I would have hoped for.

Pam :

28 Mar 2012 3:14:44pm

Hudson, this is an emotive topic and your words are reasoned and logical. Unlike others. Some of the comments are breathtakingly ignorant of the profound impact termination of pregnancy can have on many women. And instead of condemning, why not think about support and love for those who need our compassion - that's the way towards a reduction in the abortion rate.

Martin Snigg :

28 Mar 2012 4:16:48pm

My comment evaporated again.

My point was how convenient it is to insist on qualifying predicates,'tolerance' and intellectual humility but then proceed to go ahead and kill anyway. If you weren't sure if there was someone hiding in your line of fire while hunting - should you shoot anyway?

If you are uncertain about the value of fetal life, then you give the benefit of your to the child.

Who cares if someone is sincere in their belief in the rightness of feticide? were the Nazis, Bolsheviks insincere? The question is whether the killing is right or wrong. And quite frankly the intellectual argument for abortion was lost over a decade ago, it is only a matter now of making people aware.

@Pam it isn't charity to mince words when thousands of lives are at stake - you have that luxury because you escaped the womb alive. We were cared for into maturity protected against the state killing us by a regime of human rights. Why not them who are most dependent?

Pam :

28 Mar 2012 5:36:44pm

Martin,I am trying to understand where you are coming from in this debate."If you are uncertain about the value of fetal (foetal) life, then you give the benefit of the (doubt) to your child."I'm not arguing about the 'value' of a foetus. My primary concern would always be for the welfare of the pregnant woman and the support society extends to her. A number of women are in difficult domestic situations, where violence is a factor, and a pregnancy can occur. A number of women are sexually assaulted and a pregnancy results. A number of women who are psychologically ill fall pregnant. Need I go on? All I'm saying is that if we focus on support for women then the numbers of abortions may decline.

Hudson Godfrey :

28 Mar 2012 5:41:39pm

Interesting arguments if offered as statements of opinion, but we're not talking about opinions in the same breath as beliefs are we?

I mean look at your own comments. You give no quarter to the equally firmly held beliefs of your opponents and as such remain completely intolerant of their views. And yet you have no proof of what you're saying!

Your analogy as to whether I'd regret shooting a person inadvertently is as risible as Kelly's conflation of abortion with involuntary euthanasia. Neither really deserves a response.

Martin Snigg :

Shema :

27 Mar 2012 10:39:47pm

It is not in the name of church we should argue, the church can represent God more or less but, we have to go back to the Bible and see what God himself has to say in context about the whole issue, God is the standard of good not the church.God is the giver of life and it is He only who has the right of decision in the issues of life.

Hudson Godfrey :

That happens to be the weakest argument ever though. The so called good books come down to us from a time when they hadn't invented penicillin yet much less safe medical procedures of any kind.

Does anyone not think it would've saved us a heap of time and trouble if even today we revised a few of the ten commandments to take out some of the spooky language and added in something like, "be good to children", and "if pain persists see a doctor"?

kate (the original) :

Hudson Godfrey :

Martin Snigg :

28 Mar 2012 12:14:02pm

"What can scientism say about greed, cruelty, and natural lust, about amour-propre—that natural form of comparative self-love found only among human animals and, famously, among scientists—that insists on recognition from and superiority to one’s fellows?

Leaving aside the simplemindedness scientistic his moral views, I would remind that “Love your neighbor as yourself” is a central teaching of biblical morality, promulgated centuries before tepid and banal scientistic translation. It did not require the discovery of the human genome or penicillin, because that “Iron Age tribal document” already understood and proclaimed our common humanity, based on the recognition of our equal god-likeness. Moreover, the Bible, unlike adherents of scientism, understood that such a teaching had to be commanded, because it went against the grain of native human selfishness. In this respect, as in so many others, the Bible understands human nature in ways much richer than a science that sees man only through his genetic homologies and brain events. And it teaches us more wisely than homilies drawn from DNA analysis, embellished by naïve and wishful thinking." Leon Kass

And the genesis of science occurred within a society steeped in Biblical religion ( http://jameshannam.com/ )

Hudson Godfrey :

28 Mar 2012 12:37:20pm

Love thy neighbour, the Golden Rule, or the principle of reciprocity all refer to the same basic idea that comes down to us from any number of religious and philosophical traditions, most of which pre-date Christianity, several of which pre-date Judaism and at least one of which is Secular Humanism.

I would argue that we can establish the genesis of science to be at least as far back as the big bang. You see where you're wrong in your underlying assumption is that you seen to infer scientific facts rely on you or me believing them for their existence to be manifest. They don't!

Martin Snigg :

28 Mar 2012 1:52:43pm

So we agree physical science is not directly a moral science -it can't discover the principles of practical reason, which are not physical things! So where did your confusion about what the nature of science, morality and Biblical religion come from? Wouldn't your time be better spent learning about these things than graffitiing your ignorance all over public spaces?

The institutionalisation of systematic enquiry into the physical world is not an act of God, its an historical question. What on earth are you blathering about? I don't have time for this Hudson, your soliloquies might get applause from your mother but I find them excruciatingly tedious.

Hudson Godfrey :

28 Mar 2012 6:01:42pm

I assure you Martin that I only responded in a manner appropriate to clearing up your apparent ignorance. I did not mean to offend.

If on the other hand if by saying you've no time to respond to challenging ideas you really mean that you have no arguments with which to contradict them then that's fine by me. I happen to think that a truly and honestly offered "I don't know" is one of the better answers known to man. And far less tedious I think you may find than attempted sophistry.

Shema :

27 Mar 2012 10:33:58pm

Let me just say one thing. It is very disturbing reading some of the comments regarding a new life.We can never justify abortion, it is morally wrong and we all know it, we just want to carry on with our miserable promiscuous lifestyles in the quest for happiness. The problem of abortion does not start with the question if is it right or is it wrong, it is the road which leads to abortion is what we have to address. And if we open our eyes than we see that real problem is a complete destruction of family units, our priorities are perverted in the rush to find fulfillment and happiness, we have accepted the lies of the devil, by pursuing worthless materialism, and hedonism seeking sexual pleasures, without being able to find permanent satisfaction and fulfillment, we are chasing the illusions of the devil for happiness, and forgotten the truth of real fulfillment which can be found only with God. Most of the abortions are not happening because of life threatening medical conditions, but as a result of unjustifiable result of sin, which is usually spring out from our own selfishness, the more we are trying to find happiness with the lies of the devil the more miserable we become, happiness comes when we are not focused on our-self but others, it is a mystery, the more we trying to find it the further we are getting from it.

It is not rocket science, as long as we are trying to establish the standards we can be sincere, and we are usually sincerely wrong. We have chosen to know good and evil, the standard of goodness is God there is nobody good except Him, if we are trying to decide what is good we have to see what God has to say about it, so our standard in every decision should be the Holy Bible, which is the word of God, and in light of the truth about everything we make our decisions but in the knowledge of the truth we either obey God and choose what is right and result in happiness, or we choose to disobey God and suffer the consequences. As more a society trying to eliminate the morals which was established by the word of God, and replace it with secular humanism, as more miserable a society becomes. Europe and today's society's was based on the moral and ethical values of the Holy Bible, now we are trying to replace them with our own wisdom because we believe the lies which are told to us in the name of science the guessings of some proud scientists who are saying they are beyond the Bible, and they saying it is a tale, but how much more trust able and easy to believe, that all what is, is a result of the accident of nothing. Out of nothing appeared something, and that something in billions and billions of years formed a highly organized system, and of course out of the elements there sprung up life, and of course in long enough time out of the bacteria came all which has ever lived and living today.So we just put aside the Bible as a tale book, and we are deciding what is right a

IB :

28 Mar 2012 10:47:14am

You seem to be unable to handle the complexity of life creation. Firstly, gods are human creations, and they have nothing to do with reality. Secondly, life arises from biological processes. You need sperm from males and eggs from females. The overwhelming majority of eggs and sperm never go on to create life. On relatively rare occasions an egg gets fertilised by a sperm. This is just the next necessary step for life, and has nothing miraculous about it. Women deciding to put an end to the progression of the life evolving process are in a very difficult position indeed, and require compassion and understanding. There is nothing simple here, and every case requires an understanding of the individuals circumstance.

Another Kate :

27 Mar 2012 1:31:15pm

Ok, I'll take the bait.Let's see:The Catholic Church doesn't want any more abortions. Which of the following is something the Church is willing to do to prevent them?a) Promote the use of contraceptionb) End the stigma around being a single parent. They could start themselves by employing single mothers?c) Campaign for greater support for single mothers AFTER birth. That's right, if life is so important, it continues after the birth. You could for example, campaign for higher welfare payments? Or allow single mothers to send their children to Catholic schools for a lower fee?d) Provide free health care at Catholic hospitals to single women who chose to keep these babies/fetuses/unborn whatevers. If you choose to keep a baby/fetus/whatever that is going to require a lifetime of medical care, maybe the church should step up and acknowledge the reality of that?e) Establish drop in centres run by Church volunteers to help families who choose to keep profoundly disabled offspring.Here are five real world suggestions, none of which they're willing to do.They come to the table with nothing, they can once again leave with nothing.

Michael the Perplexed :

27 Mar 2012 5:28:19pm

Well I bite back and take it point by point. a) I agree a big fail, b) Have you ever had contact with a Catholic agency, they employ a lot of women of all life's situations, straight, gay, single, married, divorced etc. check out some of the aged care facilities, c)I think they are with you on this one and maybe way ahead of you, again you should check out their position on this matters, d) I think that they have been doing this from well before any government started doing this; Churches have often been the ones that set up hospitals in the dim dark past for the poor etc. Now days all public hospitals do this including the big Catholic teaching hospitals. Go and watch who gets treated at St Vincent’s public in Sydney to find out. Private hospitals including the few Catholic ones don't provide this type of care and never have.e) Maybe you should actually look at what services Catholic social welfare services run and what they do. Go and check out what organisation like St Vincent De Paul do day in and day out to support single parent, children, etc.The problem Kate is not that the Catholic Church does not come to the table; they and lots of other churches put so much on the table that you must be looking at the some other table for you and me to put something on.There are lots of things to criticise the Catholic Church about but really not on any of the points you raised.

Another Kate :

12 Apr 2012 5:47:23pm

B) The church campaigns to be exempted from anti-discrimination practices in it's schools and agencies. Single mothers should not be allowed to be around their children.Catholic schools also expel teenage girls who become pregnant and carry it to term.c)School fees are set and free education to those from single parent households is certainly NOT on offer.d)Catholic hospitals are private. I've never heard of them advertising that they're throwing their doors open to those in need?e) Maybe they do have drop in centres. I'll concede that one if they do.So 1 from 5.

Joan :

31 Mar 2012 2:02:34pm

Another Kate: I'm amazed, just amazed. All five of the points you mentioned are carried out by Catholic organizations and individuals already. How do you not know that? Talk to people at Catholic Care, at your local parish school, in any Catholic parish gathering. You'll hear some facts about Church practice that will amaze you. And my own theory re abortion isn't orthodox - I agree with those who say abortion should be safe, available and very very rare. But Catholic practice, as opposed to theory, has always been to provide support to mothers who need help to bear and rear their child.

Another Kate :

12 Apr 2012 5:49:28pm

All 5?Contraception? No.And Catholic schools and hospitals are private. They certainly don't throw open their doors to those in need. They let in those who have cash.And anti-discrimination legislation is something they've campaigned very hard to be exempt from. Some won't hire single mothers as they don't 'follow the church's ethos'. You can't denigrate these people and pretend to be their champions.

Michael the perplexed :

27 Mar 2012 1:24:06pm

Among the many things that I don’t understand is why when the question of the Catholic Church and its teaching on abortion and contraception are raised some one always raises the issue of too many people on the planet, i.e. starving children, abandoned children etc.It seems to me that whenever someone want to point to the failing of societies one of the scapegoats is there are too many people and that anybody that has a belief that all life is a good thing and ending a life before it natural time must be the cause of the shortage of food etc. Lest look to the way we organise the world before we start blaming others for our own wealth and comfort.I could go on like everyone else but I think Charles Dickens expressed it best with this section of a Christmas Carol when the Second Ghost took Scrooge to see Tiny Tim.“If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, none other of my race,” returned the Ghost, “will find him here. What then? If he be like to die, he had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.” Scrooge hung his head to hear his own words quoted by the Spirit, and was overcome with penitence and grief. “Man,” said the Ghost, “if man you be in heart, not adamant, forbear that wicked cant until you have discovered What the surplus is, and Where it is. Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man’s child. Oh God! to hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust!”

Hudson Godfrey :

27 Mar 2012 8:42:24pm

No Michael, that's simply not good enough I think you may misunderstand what's being argued here. It isn't just that the pro-choice side of the debate might be expected to argue against some kind of Malthusian final solution. It is full on equating abortion with involuntary euthanasia. Something which is most certainly is not, yet which he has the unmitigated gall to argue without even making a case for it.

We believe different things. Mr Kelly appears to believe that the foetus is as fully human as an adult person, whereas the whole of the pro-choice argument rests upon an opposing and entirely different understanding about the nature of the unborn human. Those positions are well known to such a degree by now as to make the presumption of clear understanding of both sides of the debate a reasonable proposition for anyone who still engages with it. That is to say that we ought to be able to responsibly engage with one another on a more reasonable basis than Mr Kelly does here.

Arguing the toss on this gets us nowhere because neither side ever concedes anything when we try. However even if the pro-choice have no rationale excepting the same kind of blind faith the religious profess (though I'd dispute that), then we'd have two groups with different beliefs and little else we could agree serves as evidence besides. That seems very much to me to be the kind of situation where tolerance is recommended over insulting our intelligence with arguments that aside from being rather incendiary don't really deserve to be dignified with a response.

jim morris :

27 Mar 2012 12:31:16pm

People who aren't pro-abortion have been intimidated into silence by the feminists who use lies and euphemisms to control the subject. A foetus is not part of a woman's body because it contains 2 sets of genetic material. Abortion is not fertility control, contraception is.

Daniel Bull :

Rhino :

27 Mar 2012 7:50:41pm

As my university biology lecturer correctly pointed out a foetus is a parasite. It draws nourishment for its own development from the mother, irrespective of the mother wanting it or not. The only real difference between a foetus and a tape worm is that the foetus (excluding surrogate mothers) carries DNA from the mother. Even in the case of a surrogate mother the DNA of the parasite/foetus is compatible with the mother.

Rhino :

28 Mar 2012 9:32:14pm

Well, it was more than a decade ago and the practical reality is that a foetus acts as a parasite. Which was the point he was making, which got us thinking outside of the box, not taking some random general assertion about something and breaking it down to facts to build a model to understand things. A practical example of teaching us how to think through the reproductive biological model. As such, I think the professor fed me a good method for reframing a situation to get to the facts.

He was also factually correct about the practical reality, not the emotional reality and that is the difference between your emotive response and my factual statement.

Enough is Enough :

30 Mar 2012 3:00:51pm

Its not emotive. a baby can not be consider a parasite simply because it is developing and being nourish inside his mothers womb. I don't know in what reality can you consider a fetus as a parasite and how someone can go to that conclusion and how framing it as such, can be consider as a practical example of the reproductive biological model. because as it is written in lot of medical text and journal and even if you make a quick google search. it would show that is how the womb supposed to work.

Rhino :

31 Mar 2012 12:15:03am

As I said "the practical reality is that a foetus acts as a parasite"

You want to give it something more meaningful. I am simply applying the facts. This doesn't make me any less compassionate about babies and the human reproductive cycle, but I am not blinkered into believing it is something magical and all good. It is not, child birth has throughout history being an exceedingly lethal activity. How the womb is too work, is a trite comment when you realise how often it doesn't work as it is supposed, how often it fails and takes mum and baby with it.

Rhino :

03 Apr 2012 9:34:55am

Well if you read my last post a little more carefully you would see I said "acts as a parasite". That being said, I know a few parents who consider there full grown children parasites but that meaning is more metaphorical.

Anyway I am well aware of how the womb works and reprodcution that leads to an implanted embryo isn't the same as an implanted parasite. But from that point, the actions of a parasite and an embryo are similar, so similar that they are comparable. If you don't like that, that is your problem. Facts do not change due to your belief.

damien roberts :

12 Nov 2012 10:42:44am

one could just as easily trivialize out of existence any living creature on earth. from your frame we are all parasites. every born human being depends, absolutely, for its survival on the natural world and other people. it is utter dependence and interdependence. one could just as easily liken an adult human being to a parasite. the question is - why do some people NEED TO make that equivalence? the answer is always denial of human driven and given value. it is always necessary to trivialize life in order to destroy it. denial of value is basic in any drive to destruction. one should look to motives for the with holding of value rather than the supposed lack of value itself. it is always expedient and self interested.

Enough is Enough :

27 Mar 2012 5:15:21pm

@Kate I'm really getting tired of people saying that the fetus growing inside the mothers womb is a parasite, please stop and think if it was a parasite then you should be consider as a parasite as well.

kate (the original) :

28 Mar 2012 10:38:35am

Not that you were addressing me but I'll answer for myself, and yes, "I" (or rather, the foetus which later became me) was a parasite in my mother's womb. It's a description, not a demonisation, and whether or not my mother wanted me to be born or not is entirely irrelevant to the issue.

Technically, medically, physically, every one of us developed from ovum/sperm, to zygote, to blastocyst, to embryo/foetus, to baby.

Yes, it is a complex issue, and pretending a foetus is a tiny tiny baby does not help.

kate :

28 Mar 2012 4:29:43pm

I can only assume that your arrogance, offensiveness and lack of compassion, understanding and basic humanity in relation to this issue is related to the fact - it is a fact, I assume? - that you have never been pregnant, and can therefore have no concept of what is going through the mind of a woman making this decision.

Enough is :

Enough is Enough :

28 Mar 2012 5:05:04pm

I'm just trying to make you realize that a baby and a parasite are not comparable.

Yes women can get pregnant thru a lot of different reason and the situation they find themselves during that pregnancy may varies however to name what they are carrying in their womb as parasite because the situation is not ideal or right is simply not acceptable.

kate :

I carried a baby to term. I was overjoyed to be pregnant, I loved the experience, I wanted the child more than anything in the world, and I love my daughter with the fiercest love.

The embryo that became my beloved daughter was a parasite. It's a technical description. My use of the word says precisely NOTHING about "my situation" and you have no right to tell me whether my use of that word is "acceptable".

Enough is Enough :

30 Mar 2012 2:59:44pm

Parasite is a term that is used to describe something that gets nutrient from the host which in turn endanger the health of the host (i.e. tick,lice, and tapeworm), which need to be remove for the host health.I certainly remember a cover of a magazine, Time maybe, showing an embryo don't remember how old it is but in every way, shape and form it shows a developing human.Again women may get pregnant in difficult circumstances where the future seems bleak (please see story about Jennifer Lake) but to call the fetus a parasite is just unacceptable.

Happy Days :

IB :

27 Mar 2012 10:54:18am

Articles like this one will help ensure that lawful abortion is here to stay. People who live in the real world understand how difficult it is, and that every child deserves the best possible start in life. On rare occasions women find themselves in a situation where they do not wish to proceed with their pregnancy. Whatever the reason, this is not the best possible start for a child. Such women need all of the support, emotional and practical, that they can get to make an appropriate decision for their particular circumstance. Whatever the decision they make needs to be supported and respected by the rest of the community.

Sean :

27 Mar 2012 12:57:22am

I agree that the loaded comments about the sex-crazed society turn this otherwise well-considered piece into an easy target for ridicule. The main point, however, is valid. There are far too many abortions and we don't reflect on it enough as a society. Abortion should be a last resort as, ultimately, it is an ethically compromising experience for everybody involved. Instead, it is too often the first choice easy option.

Thoreau :

26 Mar 2012 10:20:17pm

What purports to be a rational re-examination of views about abortion, in the spirit of inquiry promoted by people like Socrates, turns out to be another one-sided and very simplistic treatment of the subject. The writer, a Catholic academic, tells us to be more compassionate and reasonable about those with whom we disagree – a good point – but then proceeds to assume that all his assumptions are right. The only issue, it seems, is to provide better assistance to those women who face the dreadful decision of engaging in what the writer says is ‘a moral evil’. Socrates must be turning in his grave.

Kelly informs us that, ‘If the cultural life of a country is to be worth living, it (sic) must be prepared to examine conscientiously the causes and conditions that deny the right to life to the unborn.’ Why a single cell, or small group of cells, has a ‘right to life’; why natural miscarriages are not seen as equivalent to natural homicide; why sperm don’t have similar ‘rights’; why a woman who does not believe in the Catholic God should be guided by that God’s views on whether to have a baby; etc, do not come into the picture. We are simply told that abortion is threatening our species. What about the absence of appropriate birth control threatening our species?

Yes, the subject is complex. That’s why it cannot be neatly packaged by the logic of religious conviction, however compassionate the attempt.

Steely Dan :

27 Mar 2012 3:01:31pm

"There are illnesses and injuries that kill children every day. So that means willfully killing a child is "equivalent"?"No. Thoreau's point (about what wasn't addressed in the article) compared 'natural miscarriage' to 'natural homicide'. Injuries and illnesses (if genuinely without agency) would be comparable to 'natural homicide', not wilful killing.

"In your view, at what point does an incredibly large number of cells become a human?"I believe that's why Thoreau mentioned this: "Yes, the subject is complex. That’s why it cannot be neatly packaged by the logic of religious conviction, however compassionate the attempt."

Astonished :

26 Mar 2012 10:00:25pm

"A humble confession of sins is in order for all of us. The sex-crazed condition of modern society has affected everyone. "

Is this a subtle attempt to say that abortion is used as a serious method of contraception? Because the vast majority of people use barrier and hormonal contraceptives first. The more of these there are, the fewer abortions will happen. Of course, Catholics traditionally consider those a mortal sin too.

"In the meantime, present and future generations know, implicitly at least, that they were born into a dangerous world. Society never assured any one of them the right to exist. "

Or to look at it another way, everyone born after the advent of legal abortions knows that they were deliberately brought into the world, or loved enough that someone desired that they live once they were conceived.

"On the world-scene, perhaps a third of their number is aborted."Or perhaps it's 90%! As Kate has already asked, do you have any reliable statistics for this? How many of these terminations include fetuses who would have died naturally at or following birth, possibly taking the mother with them?

Rhino :

26 Mar 2012 9:41:06pm

Well this article gets off on the wrong foot by starting with a rather inaccurate estimate of 80k to 100k abortions in Australia per year.

Why use an estimate Anthony Kelly? If you see here, http://www.fpq.com.au/pdf/AbortionFAQ.pdf medicare in Australia has only funded 72,968 procedures that include abortions (but also includes curettes for miscarried foetus's which are not abortion, not the termination of a healthy pregnancy).

Not a good start there Anthony, if you going to make claims on an intellectual basis, try starting with accruate facts, not estimates that are coloured by an anti intellectual agenda.

"Up to a third of the next generation is being terminated. A 30% casualty rate would point to a particularly bloody military engagement." Rubbish. This woeful comment assumes that a women who has an abortion won't have another child later or hasn't had a child/or children already. Most families today plan how big their family will be. I would say all an abortion does is affect the timing of the next generation.

Moving on lets look at this bit:"However the silence might be explained, public reflection on abortion is episodic and is usually "no-go zone" in political discourse."

I would say it is a no go, because the politicians are (occasionally) wise enough to know, what a citizen does with their body is none of the politicians business and it is also none of yours. That is the key thing, your so keen on inserting your morality into a womans life that you piously trample the rights of all women for that of an unborn child (which is a potential human, not guaranteed to be born).

It is here that all your pious hand wringing along with the contempt you show us by calling us sinners fails. Until you can demonstrate that your insanse religious morals have more right to womens body and subsequent life than the women does abortion will remain an absolute right all women should have.

Stephen :

26 Mar 2012 7:30:53pm

I'm always suspicious when middle class members of the sex that won't ever have to carry a child moralise about abortion. Meanwhile, millions of women in the third world have their lives ruined by the inability to control their own fertility and children go hungry because there are too many mouths to feed. I'm sure that in the comfortable halls of the Australian Catholic Uiversity "Every Sperm is Sacred" but there are real world problems out there if you care to look.

Rhino :

28 Mar 2012 2:02:35pm

@Martin Snigg

"Pro-aborts are the most scientifically ignorant group I've come across."

Have you got a sound basis for that insight? Considering the last time we engaged on this matter, you demonstrated an extremely one sided, closed minded, factually inaccurate view on the matter. If this really is as a serious matter as you like to contend it is, then please lets not try to throw baseless and factually inaccurate, comments about as they detract from the debate.

Also, its not millions per year at home in Australia, it is far lower than that, well below 70,000 per year. Even using your wild numbers, it would take decades to reach "millions".

"Every human LIFE is sacred. Do I need to explain how we get a new one of those?" Straight off, do you complain about teenage boys doing what teenage boys do? Do you complain about women who have their period. Thats human life denied right there. Beyond the trite and obvious gap in your scientific knowledge, if as you assert we only have one life.. what right do you have to control a womens life by dictating her reproductive life? I ll give you a red hot hint: You have 0 right.

John Md :

26 Mar 2012 5:44:32pm

Human life is, on a world scale, treated as appallingly cheap. The Syrian govt is killing its own people. More democratic nations have few scruples about killing when it suits their 'national interest'. On this larger scale of things, the termination of what is not yet in any meaningful sense a 'life' is maybe not the huge moral issue that Kelly claims.

Our first responsibility is to the living, of whom, partly thanks to Vatican dogma, the world has far more than it can support. Or if the claim is that it can, show politically how this might be achieved.

As for the tears over our 'rapidly ageing population', these are grossly misplaced. We are likely to supply the gap by taking in immigrant skills, sensible enough if the ecosystems could support such a population, but not sensible when they are already under severe strain. Anthony Kelly, you need to take time off to get seriously into ecosystem and planetary support system science. If an ageing population is the price for restoring the ecosystem balance, it is a price that we cannot afford not to pay!

Catfish :

26 Mar 2012 5:38:34pm

Hard to see why Christians don't like abortion I thought sending your own children to their death (ie. God sent Jesus to be crucified, etc.) was the central theme of Christianity? Anyway how about we consider the possibility that humans are just another critter and that only so many will fit on this little planet. I think overpopulation is a more urgent and real moral problem than abortion.

Martin Snigg :

28 Mar 2012 1:04:53pm

There is no threat of overpopulation see youtube 'population research institute'.

Jesus was tortured and murdered by us, by the religio-political powers, and his death was the defeat of death - haven't you heard of Easter? Self sacrificial love is the highest example of humanity we have how can you equate that with killing innocent babies?

The Crucifixion shows up the emptiness and evil of expedient violence, you have the Christian message upside down - how did that happen in you?

lynne :

26 Mar 2012 4:58:22pm

I am sick and tired of this issue but have to weigh in once again just to say, it is nobody else's business if one has an abortion, except the people involved. Why is it no suprise we once again have a male writing this article and telling women what to do with their own bodies? Believe what you want, but please, do not force your judgements on others, especially when you know nothing about it as far as women go.

Jake :

LS :

27 Mar 2012 9:40:58am

It would probably be a good idea to engage contsructively with the views expressed, rather than simply maintain that the writer has no right to an opinion as he isa) maleb) CatholicThat kind of approach is very shallow. And I'm a woman and not a Catholic!

naughtee :

29 Mar 2012 9:34:48pm

actually LS, lynne is right, it IS the woman's body, no one else should have a say in how she deals with what amounts to a dangerous medical situation (except perhaps her doctor and they can be changed).

no one should be able to force anybody to allow another person (in this case we are talking about a foetus), to use their body to survive. and guess what we don't!

we do not force people to give blood to save peoples lives, we do not force family members to give bone marrow to save their children's lives. AND we do not force women to allow a foetus to use a woman's body to develop. however all i read here and in other posts on the abc are a select few who constantly assert they are right and it seems only women should lose their right to choose who uses their bodies.

to be consistent, this minority should be calling for the above scenarios (and more) to be enshrined in law, so viable organs would become available for children (by force), much needed rare forms of blood would be extracted (by force) etc...

it is NONE of your business, not the churches, not martin's, not the media, not the woman's partner it is the woman's body, it is her business.

i too am sick of the religious loons demonstrating their complete ignorance with this matter (amongst other things).

kate :

david :

26 Mar 2012 5:47:01pm

20 million people in australia, life expectancy of 80 years, birth rate is approximately the replacement rate, so about 20milllion/80 = about 300000 babies born each year.Thus if there are 100000 abortions, these consitute in the vicinity of 1/3.

Unbeliever :

27 Mar 2012 11:19:44am

2010 deaths in Australia = 140,000

2010 births in Australia = 297,000

2010 abortions in Australia = 73,000

Proportion of Australian people opposed to abortion = 15%.

Proportion of Australian people who still like interfer in other peoples private lives and dictate what they can and can't do based on the dictates of old unmarried celibate childless men in foreign countries = 15%

No need to estimate when you have the figures available at your finger tips.

kate :

27 Mar 2012 11:25:19am

"if there are 100000 abortions"

That's a very big "if", considering the Medical Journal of Australia has found that "There are no data currently available for deriving accurate numbers of induced abortions in Australia", and the Medicare item number under which abortions are performed also includes procedures which do not meet the commonly understood definition of abortion.

And what about all those billions of babies that could have been born if men did not, ahem, "spill their seed", or the uterine environment was not so treacherous to the poor little swimmers, or spontaneous miscarriages did not occur, or couple did not have s...x on exactly the right day, or used contraceptives, or simply failed to have s..x at all and threw that 'potential life' away on a sanitary pad?

In fact, it's amazing anyone is born at all - the "casualty rate" which purportedly causes Mr Kelly so much concern is actually a lot closer to 100% than 30%, and 99.9999999% of that is (according to his belief) caused by his god, the world's most prolific abortion provider by a considerable margin.

What's that Skip. :

James Picone :

27 Mar 2012 1:17:30pm

Except that the birth rate is still about replacement, even with abortions - so it's 25% of pregnancies in your example (300,000 born per year, another 100,000 aborted = 400,000 total pregnancies). The number of abortions is 30% of the number of people in the next generation after abortion, but that double-counts abortions.

And of course the number of abortions of viable foetuses in Australia per year isn't even remotely close to 100,000. Maybe half that - which would make it 14% of pregnancies. Bit of a far cry from 30%, huh?

Martin Snigg :

28 Mar 2012 1:10:32pm

Murder has always been 'banned' by Christianity along with every other society in human history. And our civil law refelected that until recently - and things have gotten darker and more foreboding as year passes.

What societies, who want to murder, first have to do is dehumanise the intended victims - blacks, Jews, Homos, Gypsies, Babies.

Hudson Godfrey :

26 Mar 2012 3:49:40pm

Okay so you managed to maintain a kind of rational balance up to the point where you characterised our society as "sex crazed"!

You then leapt off the very precipice of incomprehension in arguing a link between abortion and involuntary euthanasia! The idea itself is easily as morally repugnant as the use of it in this context as some kind of scare tactic!

I'm as thoroughly sick of this issue as the next person, but this really takes the cake!

Muz :

26 Mar 2012 7:38:05pm

Personally I think it was a lot earlier than that.We've got weird contrasting of ecological preservation concerns with the birth rate as though that makes any kind of sense; the suggestion that the statistical visibility of abortions now somehow represents a society wide increase in such procedures (cant compare a vaguely known to a barely known); what are cited as societal increases in compassion regarding the death penalty and disasters is put as surprisingly ignoring abortion (when said increase in compassion is what helped get it legalised in the first place).

Hudson Godfrey :

27 Mar 2012 1:31:09pm

Muz,

Thanks for your thoughts but I think it misses the main thrust of his calumny to go for anything less than the fact that he equates all abortion with involuntary euthanasia! I'm appalled by that suggestion being argued as a tactic in this forum.

Pam :

26 Mar 2012 3:30:05pm

Abortion is always a tragedy - most profoundly for the woman concerned, but also for the father and for society in general.The lack of support and understanding for women struggling to accept an unwanted pregnancy needs to be addressed in a more compassionate way. And "demonising" women who make the decision to abort helps no one. It is a worrying trend that abortion figures are so high and deeply saddening. Change needs to occur but not via means of pro-life marches and the like. I think we somehow need to reaffirm the sacredness of life - and the churches have a big role to play for this to come about.

H :

Martin Snigg :

28 Mar 2012 1:58:03pm

It is not complex it is exceedingly simple. One cannot claim a right to do wrong. Is the abolition of chattel slavery a vexing issue for you? the evil of Stalinist/Nazi genocide? the private murders contracted by organised crime?

Moral Relativism :

Science can't yet tell us the moment when a foetus becomes a separate human, so we draw a convenient line in the sand which is 'at birth' and hand out jail sentances for aborting after that point. But there is nothing magical about birth that creates a human from a clump of cells. At what point does abortion becomes murder? 10 months? 20 months? 30 months? 3 years? These are legitimate questions that only get asked nowdays by philosophers. If in the future they discover we are human at 10 months then our generation will be remembered as monsterous even by atheists, in the same way generations of slave traders hundreds of years ago were at the time respectable members of society.

Pam :

27 Mar 2012 10:28:47am

Moral Relativism,"Demonising men and women who abort 2 year olds helps no other either. What's your point?"

Under the law, a 2 year old is not aborted, a 2 year old is murdered. My point was that a decision to terminate a pregnancy should not result in condemnation for the person who makes that painful decision. If our society truly valued people, then more support and love would be offered to those most in need.

James Picone :

27 Mar 2012 1:29:58pm

Errr, human pregnancies usually last around 9 months, so if kids don't 'become human' until 10 months then we're morally alright.

In practice, trying to draw a line and say "Okay, on one side of this line it's a bundle of cells, on the other side it's a human" is ridiculous and inconsistent with physical facts. A pregnancy is a process, a becoming - you start with something that's clearly not human (a fertilised egg), and end up with a human coming out the other end. In between is a progressive shift away from being not-human and towards being human - it's an analog scale, not a binary property.

The best we can do is pick some point that's before anything resembling humanity is present, and say "That's the legal line in the sand". That's different from the ethical line in the sand, but laws don't work well in greyscale.

Martin Snigg :

28 Mar 2012 1:28:34pm

This is just magical thinking James and extremely dangerous for everyone. If a one month old isn't human what is it? lol

And a toddler what percentage human is she?

Look humans desire power, we chafe at restrictions (remember childhood? have you had children?) tax payer money artificially insulates leftist-intellectuals from the consequences of their beliefs. Doctrines that teach they and their political equivalents are are intrinsically more human because their capacities are fully developed and they find themselves on top, implying a natural right to rule will be intoxicatingly attractive. But they are wicked thoughts and your teachers and those power are as fallible and corruptible as any other establishment in human history.

rosemary :

26 Mar 2012 8:27:28pm

I can understand the offence abortion causes to a majority of the population.However when it is discussed 'the future of the human race' and the 'rapidly aging population' is it taken into account the amount of children that are born that suffer in and out of foster care or in orphanages in freezing countries that are under fumnded.That we have homeless youths and others in every country that see no hope and and have no grounding without guidance.Is the solution really to just have more babies? Considering also that families who do have most children often don't even think about the large issues in life to do with humans, politics and the environment aside whats happening in their back yard or what the gossip magazines are talking about.I don't think people should be worrying about whether or not women choose to abort an embryo, they should be concentrating on bettering the life of actual embryo's that ARE born- whether they are wanted or unwanted..whatever child is born in to this world and whatever is to come of this world needs a supportive start and to be wanted by the person giving birth to it..

Unbeliever :

Brazza :

26 Mar 2012 10:52:13pm

In a lifetime working within an Australian Church I have seen the ambivalence of Australians to children, mothers and kids without parents. Young children daily face destructive stress and in Australia they remain at the bottom of the social ladder in many cases. The social tragedy of uncared for children in the class society is reason enough not to go full term when no alternative can be found. The churches are deeply committed to changing social inequity especially where it affects unwanted kids.

On the Wider Web

The violence, and responses to it, have raised a slew of questions. Is it helpful, or even accurate, to characterize these killings as religiously motivated? How have the attack and responses to it helped to construct or entrench the identities said to be in conflict? Should the events be understood in the context of France's history of satire or its history of colonialism? Can the two be separated in this case? What is the significance of the willingness of many not only to affirm free expression, but also to identify themselves with the magazine? Are there limits to the freedom of expression?

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. The Islamic State awaits the army of "Rome," whose defeat at Dabiq, Syria, will initiate the countdown to the apocalypse.

Best of abc.net.au

Shaping from the soul

For Murray 'Muzza' Bourton, surfing is a 'drug' and surfboard shaping is a lifestyle.

Subscribe

How Does this Site Work?

This site is where you will find ABC stories, interviews and videos on the subject of Religion & Ethics. As you browse through the site, the links you follow will take you to stories as they appeared in their original context, whether from ABC News, a TV program or a radio interview. Please enjoy.